Who is to blame for the current state of affairs in the U.S.?
It is said that politics is a game(this is not something that I concede), that it is played by the voter and the politician alike, and in that, it would seem that both parties should make a win of successes and loss of the failures. But who is to be responsible for those wins and failures, who should hold blame for bad policy, theft of personal wealth, dead citizens (through multiple means), crippling regulation and environmental destruction by way of legalese and mandated governance.
Voters.
If anyone should be to blame it should be these people who have chosen to let other people do things to them right? These people have asked that their own affairs and that of all others should be up for governance by those few who seek to be elected. It can be said that without voters the will of the majority would not be known and therefore tyranny would be rampant, but what is to be said that tyranny is not already rampant on those who disagree with the majority, or those that recognize their own right of self governance? It can also be said that without the voters, those officials who seek to rule over others would not be subject to popular opinion or have the approval to attain those positions, but then what do we make of those positions of governance that do not require the voters to fill? It is said that the voter is the ultimate tool to remove bad politicians, but they are also the fault to those bad politicians having power to execute bad policy.
If the voter is to be held accountable for their actions of tyranny over dissenters, for those actions by their politician of choice that results in the loss of freedom, life or the ability to live in accordance with one’s own responsibility, then it must be concluded that without the voters at least some instances that make up current affairs could be or would be avoided altogether. Without the majority to interfere with the choices and decisions of those others, natural state of man would be held until some person or persons tried to rule with another form of governance that does not require the voice of the people to be enacted.
Would it be better to rid ourselves of voting altogether? Some would say yes and others no.
On the “Yes” side, the actions that lead to politicians using power to decide on policies, make and continue wars, regulate peaceful interactions or actions of people, could not come about through representative governments, or ones run from a democratic value. On the “No” side, there is the openness of what would replace what is currently in place. That void could be taken over by something far worse, or it can be not taken over at all, leading the way to a more anarchic world, one where the social responsibility and responsibility is held to every person instead of transferred to some central organization to be used on all person inside a geographical location by mandate, force, or coercion. It is this fear of the unknown possibilities of human action that keeps a lot of people from entertaining such ideas of relinquishing control from governments and turned to their own interactions between people, their own morals, and their own actions.
Voting transfers the power of the individual to the collective agent (politician) that, in theory, is supposed to recognize and relay the wishes of the voters to the central government body they inhabit to create policy that adheres to the basic conditions for which they have been elected. Voting is said also to remove the responsibility of the voter and of policy that politicians create with the vested power by the voters. It creates, also in theory, a separation of what is done and what should be done by the simply collective voice of those who have voted in favor of the specific politician in power. That being said leads to another point on democracy in American politics and in general political theory. The majority vote is decidedly the winner of the contest and the wishes of those that are included in that majority are furthered in effect as wishes of ALL those in that general geographical area, but this is not so. Those voters who have voiced opposition to the elected candidate have not had their wishes furthered and in fact may be in stark contrast to what is being proposed or executed by the politician of the majority. This leaves us with a minority that is having policy being made and regulations and mandates being passed that hinder or transgress the minority. In this theory we see that even with a majority voice in a democratic system of governance, some still lose their individual morals or ideas to the overwhelming odds of collective politics.
Politicians
On the other end of the fiasco of central governments imposed on the US people are those men and women who seek power to create laws, regulations, create hoops, create issues, intervene in the very private affairs and relationships of people, to take from them their wealth as some tribute to their power, and to wage conflicts in and outside the invisible boundaries of their supposed power. It is the politician that creates the policy for which the citizen must adhere to or face punishment. It is the politician that makes his livelihood from taxation, the forced removal of wealth from private citizens. It is the politician that creates the mandates and laws that dictate the actions of the people.
Politicians are those people who have ideas of being able to control and mandate the people in their representative area into the laws and policy they put forth. Politicians make up a small group in power to control the larger mass of citizens. They use political power and power vested to them by the voters to try and regulate and systematize the actions of individuals whether they agree with the policy or law or even with that person having the power in the first place.
Democracy has given the US a system of control by majority, claimed by a small group of power hungry individuals and delusional voting individuals to give way to a standard of compulsion and decrees. It is this violation of individuals that democracy fails on every level.
But can we blame the politician? Of course we can blame the politician. Without the want to rule over someone else or some group of people the system is gone, the chains of perpetual imbalance of free versus serf, tribute payment versus voluntary contribution, war versus defense of property, and all other issues the state holds monopolies on vanish to be accomplished by free people or cast aside as not of importance or value.
Without the ability to govern being granted by popular decision these people would either not have a job with those capabilities or would grant them by more violent and less voluntary means. It can be said that if the voter did not have a person to vote for, the same ends could occur, either rule by self or despotic takeover and complete tyranny of citizens of the area would be made possible. This is not to say that without our state of faux democracy we would be ruled by tyrants or brutal regimes, since in their own ways both these things happen under democracy, but that it is only another option after democracy has ceased. I do not want to be taken as having endorsed democracy in any way, it is my intention to live only at the will of myself and for the sake or purpose of any other in coercive fashion or mandated compulsion. This does however leave open the ability that all others make this choice for themselves and that each individual's idea of governance cannot interfere with or proscribe itself onto any other in any involuntary manner.
The Law Enforcers
Another area to look into is those people that enforce the laws and compulsion of the state and its agents. Those that use state sanctioned power and authority to dispel morality and true justice at every turn. It is the Law Enforcer, any enforcer at all, that commits the force and aggression in the name and tribute of the state. It is through the state commission of theft that these agents are paid their wages, and it is through decree they achieve their ends. The action committed by these enforcers is what is felt at the individual level, it is this that we see most visibly when a law that is unjust is enforced and a peaceful action with no victim at all is quelled and a member of the whole makeup of society is transgressed and violated himself, by harassment, compulsory forfeiture of wealth, kidnapping and/or imprisonment by these enforcers.
We could say that without the enforcers the states decrees, their mandates and laws, their regulation, prohibitions, and intervention into the lives of others could not take place. I always say that to some degree when you are an agent of the state (in any capacity) you have at least some small area of agreement with what is taking place and are endorsing these transgressions by your mere employment and justification for the state’s action by completing their actions.
The permit approvers, the police, the tax collectors, the bureaucrats that assign themselves this special status by employment have only to say no to the oppressive state, to cast themselves as an individual of their own governance and to return to the role of productive producer instead of a political and economic bloodsucker.
The Non-Voter
A lot of blame is put on those of us who choose not to participate in the actions of government any longer. Those who recognize the immorality and inconsistency of the state and their actions are often labeled as the real problem and have simply given up, not trying or flat out totally to blame for everything that has happened or will happen. The Non-Voter is the man or woman who has taken their consent away from the state, they have said that they will no longer allow their will to be decided by whatever person had the most vote or the policy endorsed by the majority. Non-Voters vary in reasoning so there is no use trying to place them into a specific mold or reason for their abstinence.
The Non-Voter is without a doubt not to be blamed for the actions of politicians or their results. Maybe one can say that the Non-Voter is to blame that bad politicians are able to do bad things because the non-voter did not help another candidate to win. But in that defense non-voters, generally speaking from my own experience, recognize that no matter which person fills that space they are there for the power over other people, they want to be in control and believe they have everything worked out how it should be. The non-voter recognizes, again from my own experience, that the institution of government is the key problem with a lot of the brutal actions we see in humanity everyday, and the removal of that institution would benefit all, but at last we cannot make that choice for others.
Whenever freedom is reduced to permissions from state offices after fines, permits and threats of punishment if not done in accordance you can be sure government is the disease and not the cure. Voting for politicians is one way to subscribe to the idea that someone else knows what is good for you and your neighbors and will give it to you whether you agree with the means or not. The enforcers of bad laws, regulations and restrictions hold their own blame, for if they were to choose to not enforce bad or immoral laws and legislation, to only interfere with human actions if those actions reduce or eliminate the rights of another person or persons. The politician, power hungry as they come, aims to be the arbitrator of morals and justice to the mass populace with or without consent or justification beyond their own want or will.
No comments:
Post a Comment